Thursday, February 28, 2013

While working at the Detroit Tigers’ spring facility in Lakeland, Gov. Rick Scott announced today he will ask the Florida Legislature to set aside $5 million a year for projects specifically aimed at improving the Major League Baseball training facilities in the state.

“It’s my job as governor to make sure Florida remains the number one destination for spring training and that is why we will work to provide $5 million annually to only be used for spring training facilities,” Scott said in a statement that was released while Scott was participating in one of his “work days” with the Tigers at Joker Marchant Stadium in Lakeland.

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

I think the point (if there is one) is that the differences between Vermont and Texas - even in todays polarized climate - are tiny compared to the gulf between Germany and Cyprus. The whole EU expirament was somewhat motivated to reduce that gulf (having got tired of world wars). Of course that same gulf makes the current state of affairs in Europe basically untenable in all but the economic good times.

And no I have no flash of brilliance on how to solve the mess. It took them a long time to get here, one suspects it will take a while to unwind the mess. Of course the first step is they need to realize it is a structural issue and not bad and lazy (fill in the blank of the country having issues this week). Then they need to figure out which way they want to go - more integration but less national sovereignty, or less integration to allow for the desired sovereignty. Then they can actually do something sensible.

My main impression of the S&L crisis stems from the fact that the institution where we had our money shut down the day before my 2nd wife-to-be & I got married. I guess that wasn't a very good omen.

(I also spent that morning covering jury deliberations that resulted in the first death penalty in Little Rock in quite awhile, & certainly the first I'd ever covered. Also probably not the best of omens.)

I don't remember any regional anger during the S&L crisis, but I was fairly young.

There really shouldn't have been any because the failures were widespread geographically.

There was also a lot of similarity between the S&L Crisis and the Madoff/Mini-Madoff investment adviser frauds uncovered as a result of the 2008 economic shock - basically changing economic conditions exposed a lot of Ponzi-type fraud that had been going on for quite some time.

I think that this, with student loan problems playing a subsidiary role, is going to lead to the next big political shake-up in the United States. Bigger than any that we have encountered in the last 40 years.

One of the best card party games(Cards Against Humanity) just released their 3rd expansion, and a restock of everything. This is a series where people hoard and then sell at inflated prices because the game is constantly out of stock.

One of the best card party games(Cards Against Humanity) just released their 3rd expansion, and a restock of everything. This is a series where people hoard and then sell at inflated prices because the game is constantly out of stock.

Oh, I thought you meant the game involved hoarding and selling at inflated prices. That would be a game that I would want to play.

DC stuff: I did not realize Morrison killed off Robin until earlier this week-- read the issue, and it was pretty weak writing. I generally love everything Morrison puts his hands on, but Batman, Inc was a bad idea from the start.

At the same time, Morrison is essentially the one who created the character, so if he wanted to kill him, too, I think he's got the right.

DC stuff: I did not realize Morrison killed off Robin until earlier this week-- read the issue, and it was pretty weak writing. I generally love everything Morrison puts his hands on, but Batman, Inc was a bad idea from the start.

Which Robin? Seems to me there've been about a dozen of them, not that I've read Batman since about 1969.

VT v TX << GER < CYP ... sure, of course.
I also didn't remember regional anger w/ the S&L crisis (which I thought was more concentrated in certain states, like Texas, California, and Florida - though I guess if they're not part of a contiguous area*, that's makes the point moot), hence my query.

I don't even want to know who or what a Talia al Ghul is. Presumably something/one stupid from Denny O'Neil's reign of error way back when.

I gather Damian Wayne was that stupid round-headed kid drawn on a cover I saw a few years ago by Frank "It Takes Me 10 Years to Draw a Single Page Because I'm an Artiiiiiiiiiiiiiiste!" Quitely. I knew that kid was doomed -- from appearances, his neck would snap any time he tried to move that gigantic cranium.

I don't even want to know who or what a Talia al Ghul is. Presumably something/one stupid from Denny O'Neil's reign of error way back when.

Talia is the daughter of Ra's al Ghul, a prominent villain created by O'Neil and Neal Adams back in the '70s. He's kind of an idealist as villains go, trying to bring the world into balance by killing most of its people. He's several hundred years old, and is able to rejuvenate himself (and even return from death) by immersing himself (or being immersed) in a secret pool of chemicals called a Lazarus Pit. He doesn't have superpowers, as such, but his long life has allowed him to acquire an education on a broad range of topics and train himself into becoming a very skilled hand-to-hand fighter. Talia sometimes helps Ra's and sometimes opposes him - they have a complicated relationship. She's largely a straight villain these days, but has been more of an antihero at different times in the past.

They figured prominently in the three recent Batman movies Christopher Nolan directed.

I gather Damian Wayne was that stupid round-headed kid drawn on a cover I saw a few years ago by Frank "It Takes Me 10 Years to Draw a Single Page Because I'm an Artiiiiiiiiiiiiiiste!" Quitely.

He'll be back at some point, I assume. I wasn't paying attention to comics at the time, but I gather some Robin or other was killed about 20 years ago followed a 900-number poll of fans, or something like that. I assume that Robin didn't stay dead forever, just as Stephanie Brown came back from oblivion (or so I'm told) a few years back to headline the only Batgirl series I've ever had any interest in, until the New 52 silliness undid everything.

The first Robin that died, Jason Todd, was killed ~1988 via a 900 number poll. He stayed dead until about 2004. I think the in-continuity explanation now is that he was revived in a Lazarus pit. The original explanation was really stupid, even for comics. Jason is currently known as the Red Hood, and straddles the hero/villain line.

The second Robin that died, Stephanie Brown, was originally a vigilante called Spoiler, and was a supporting character in the solo series of the third Robin, Tim Drake. She was basically made Robin to be killed at the end of the story where it happened. It turned out she wasn't dead, she was recovering in Africa. She had a two year run as Batgirl, but now no longer exists due to the New 52 reboot.

Damian was introduced in 2006 and first became Robin in 2009 while Bruce Wayne was presumed dead and Dick Grayson (the original Robin) took over as Batman. This was one of the better recent Batman series, enjoyable because it flipped the usual dynamic by having a friendly Batman and grim Robin. It's usually considered the high point of Grant Morrison's (polarizing but mostly well-regarded) 7-year Batman run. I personally think they should have kept the Dick and Damian team, but comics are enslaved by the iconic status quo so of course Bruce came back.

I don't think Damian will be resurrected too quickly, as it seems they already have a replacement Robin in the works. Probably in ~10 years when a new wave of writers with nostalgia for Morrison's work is in charge of the Bat-books.

I would not say it's essential reading, the book doesn't know what it wants to be (thesis or memoir), but once he gets to the modern age stuff, it's fun to see how he positions himself with respect to the Alan Moores and Warren Ellises. I think his run on Doom Patrol's pretty underrated, so I enjoyed hearing what was going on in his head during that period. The book's thesis gets kind of buried under those details.

I really like Morrison*, but I was unable to get more than 1/2 through Supergods. I thought it was going to be more of him discussing/analyzing the history of superheroes, but it was more of an autobiography with a brief overview of the history mixed in.

* Since this site often discusses players in a peak vs career way, I think Morrison has the best "career" of any superhero writer. Alan Moore and Frank Miller have higher peaks, but Morrison has a lot more volume at this point and more of it with the biggest properties. He arguably has defining runs on Superman, Batman, Justice League, and the X-Men. But man, a lot of people really do not like him.

Well, writer only. I guess it depends on how much writer credit you give Jack for the Marvel stuff. I'm partial to the Fourth World myself. Certainly Kirby has made the biggest contributions to superhero comics overall.

For all you union-busters, you can start pine-tarring your bats so you can join this CEO's utterly brilliant rant against the San Francisco Symphony's musicians.

Oh good grief

"The BLS reports that the nationwide hourly mean wage for musicians and singers in performing arts companies (NAICS 711100) is $34.85. The annualized equivalent, assuming a 40-hour workweek and 52 work weeks per year would be $72,488. I will allow that employment terms offer vacation time, overtime, sick days, health benefits, and other adjustments to total compensation but a gross figure is useful in comparative analysis. Let's apply the San Francisco premium I calculated above as 18.36% to this national figure, admitting some methodological imperfection because it is from a median set of figures and I'm applying it to a mean set of figures. This premium gives us an adjusted annual income of $85,797. Check my math if you'd like and I'll correct any errors."

Let's apply that standard to all CEOs, including every small business owner, every self employed plumber and electrician, every lemonade stand operator, and see how greedy this clown is in comparison.

I have no opinion on that strike - they've the right to do so, the board has a right to respond, I'm normally receptive to the concerns of union but don't think they're an ideal mechanism for protecting workers - but the linked blog entry is pretty stupid, seemingly intentional so.

I don't even want to know who or what a Talia al Ghul is. Presumably something/one stupid from Denny O'Neil's reign of error way back when.

I gather Damian Wayne was that stupid round-headed kid drawn on a cover I saw a few years ago by Frank "It Takes Me 10 Years to Draw a Single Page Because I'm an Artiiiiiiiiiiiiiiste!" Quitely. I knew that kid was doomed -- from appearances, his neck would snap any time he tried to move that gigantic cranium.

Even if you didn't know Talia from the comics, she was a major character in the last Batman movie. But I'm guessing you skipped that one too.

Yes, and posted about on a previous thread somewheres. He's an interesting dude, and when he tells you his life story, you realize where all the weirdness comes from.

* Since this site often discusses players in a peak vs career way, I think Morrison has the best "career" of any superhero writer. Alan Moore and Frank Miller have higher peaks, but Morrison has a lot more volume at this point and more of it with the biggest properties. He arguably has defining runs on Superman, Batman, Justice League, and the X-Men. But man, a lot of people really do not like him.

I don't know about "best", but he'd be in the Comic Book Writers Hall of Fame for sure. More Pete Rose than Babe Ruth, Morrison's gotten an awful lot of hits.

The ECB raised the amount they need Cyprus to contribute by €900 million. The ECB is worried about additional capital flight and suspect more money will be needed to recapitalize the banks.

The current proposed plan is to wind Laiki bank down by putting the insured deposits (€100,000) into a 'good' bank and the rest into a 'bad' bank. The deposits in the bad bank would be partially made whole by the sale of assets held by the 'bad' bank. Ultimately this likely means deposits in Laiki over €100,000 will likely lose 30-40% of their value.

In addition, all bank deposits over €100,000 will be hit with something on the order of a 15% bank levy.

This means the uninsured portions of deposits in Laiki would be hit twice.

The current proposed plan is to wind Laiki bank down by putting the insured deposits (€100,000) into a 'good' bank and the rest into a 'bad' bank. The deposits in the bad bank would be partially made whole by the sale of assets held by the 'bad' bank. Ultimately this likely means deposits in Laiki over €100,000 will likely lose 30-40% of their value.

That's what they should do. Why would the government cover the uninsured deposits?

I dunno, I gave the first two volumes of Morrison's "Doom Patrol" a try, and it just seemed like an edition of Mad Libs: So Quirky!

I'm not that high on Doom Patrol. I think Morrison's best superhero work is probably his Animal Man run, which starts fairly conventional but becomes a unique and personal story. Issue 5 is one of the great single issues of any series.

I'm not that high on Doom Patrol. I think Morrison's best superhero work is probably his Animal Man run

I'm not saying anything original here, but Doom Patrol isn't a superhero book. It's a prelude to the Invisibles, which is unquestionably the best of Morrison's stuff. I think Marvel Boy and his FF miniseries are a bit overlooked. I feel like the Filth is probably awesome, but I did not totally comprehend it when I read it.
---

What exactly stops a troll from creating 'fake' bitcoins and flooding the market?

The short answer is that everyone on the bitcoin system has a history of every bitcoin transaction that has ever taken place, and through the additional use of public and private keys new transactions can be verified. Essentially, if you wait for enough different people to verify the legitimacy of the transaction, it becomes very hard to fake a transaction.

New bitcoins enter the system as a reward for hashing a group of past transactions called a block in order to compress it. Essentially, everyone on the system races to be the one to find the correct hash (which is computationally difficult/expensive to find, but very easy to verify) and the winner gets X bitcoins, a number which decreases as the total number of blocks that have already been successfully hashed increases.

Edit: The total number of bitcoins that can exist is limited to 21 million, a number which is approached asymptotically by halving the total number of bitcoins awarded each time an additional 210,000 blocks are hashed.

The issue with harping about the victim's responsibility is that it is entirely counter-productive, if what you are actually trying to do is reduce the occurrence of rape.

This is so wrongheaded, so utterly backwards, that it's easy to correct.

Telling young women that getting drunk at parties will significantly increase the chances they will be raped seems to be a remarkably effective tool wrt the main chance: helping women not get raped.

How can this not be clear to you?

And it's so fucking easy to say. Here: "Young lady, if you don't get drunk at the party tonight, you will significantly decrease the chance that you will be raped this evening. However, if you are raped, I will comfort you afterwards without hinting in any way that you have anything to feel guilty of."

You've somehow just told us that telling (especially young, inexperienced) women which behaviors make rape more likely is "entirely counterproductive". I can't think of anything, frankly, more dangerous. It's like not telling your child going to the big city alone for the first time which neighborhoods are dangerous. Why would anyone fail to warn them of the dangers?

@1760:

The point of Devil's comment is that any attempt to direct attention to the victim diverts it away from the perpetrators...

What weak, sorry, dangerous bullshit. Most of us are able to actually hold two ideas in our heads contemporaneously, without diluting either. Here:

1. Rape is always completely wrong.
2. Here's a list of things you need to do to minimize the chance you will be raped...

Most of us are able to actually hold two ideas in our heads contemporaneously, without diluting either. Here:

1. Rape is always completely wrong.
2. Here's a list of things you need to do to minimize the chance you will be raped...

Oh, what the hell....

1. Racism is always completely wrong.

2. Here's a list of things you need to do to minimize the chance that someone will go all Arpaio on you.

The preceding message was brought to you by Sincere Friends of Minorities.

Pardon the sarcasm, Jack, but think about it for half a second.

If an Hispanic parent took aside his or her child and gave him a list like that, there wouldn't be any confusion about the intent. Black children were, and in many cases still are, given variants of that "conversation." And of course parents give the female version of it to their daughters every day, even though they know that in an ideal world it wouldn't be necessary. And it's not as if the advice you're thinking about is all that bad.

But the point is simply that to be blunt, you're not the one to be giving that "list" to anyone but your own daughter(s). Yes, I know, "free speech", "PC", and all that, but as someone who's usually a lot more sensible than the people who reflexively fall back on those catchphrases, you're a lot brighter than that, and you know it.

Think about what your reaction would be if you were black (and perhaps you are, I don't know one way or the other), and some well intentioned white person started telling you not to "talk black", not to dress too outrageously, and generally just to act as "white" as you could, because otherwise some not so well intentioned white person might start stereotyping you and causing you harm in the form of employment denial.

I'd think that if you were human, and especially if you didn't know that person, you'd wonder why he wasn't concentrating his or her energies on changing the minds of those not so well intentioned white people, rather than giving out unsolicited advice to you.

But to get back to your two part comment: We address the first part by law and public education, plus by parent (or surrogate parent) to son conversations. We address the second part by speaking to our own children, or at the very least, as woman to woman. If your bottom line is changing minds and actions rather than just making a speech, surely those are the best channels of pursuing those valuable messages. IOW it's not the message here that poses the practical problem of reaching your intended recipient, it's the messenger.**

**And by that, I don't mean you personally, but any male who's addressing your second point to anyone he's not directly responsible for.

I'm happy to let you roll around in your own excrement, as it's what you so dearly love to do, but I'll note here that your perverse inability to talk honestly adds to the rape toll. Stop abetting rapists with your pathetic inability to distinguish between intelligent cautions, and "blaming the victim".

Grow up and learn to reason. As for referring to the KKK, you useless sack of shit, and for implying that several of us are of that ilk, stop being a gutless pc coward, and stop abetting the rape of women. It's important that those of us on the other side of the issue stop pretending that you and yours don't do wholesale damage.

2005:

That's a loathsome post.

Yes it is.

Take a breather. You've earned it.

You've now had three semi-frequent posters to the site (Vlad, MCoA, and tshipman) say that the gender stuff is actively making them want to avoid coming here. And Morty, as much as you might not like hearing it, you're one of the prime offenders. Sometimes the best thing to do is to stop typing and actually read what people are posting, rather than using every objection to your posts as fuel for your weird and quixotic persecution complex.

What was Raylan's line a few weeks back? “You run into an a$$hole in the morning, you ran into an a$$hole. You run into a$$holes all day, you’re the a$$hole.”

Pretty sure you've just described Vlad, MCOA, and tship as assholes.

You're actually proposing that because three of our most simpering sorts--of the kind that are all too happy to smear other posters, and each of whom has done so in a particular vile, general way without troubling to actually quote specific objections--can't handle the variety of thought here, that that's a good reason to change the nature of the discussion?? Holy ####.

I often disagree with Morty, but his views on gender, especially on a site predominantly lefty, and snotty towards any deviation, are invaluable. I haven't missed a second of MCOA's nasty, contemptible, holier than thou, utterly conventional crap, but I'd sincerely miss Morty's interesting thinking on sex, gender, the past and the future.

And, because despite the whining, it can't be said enough, regardless of context:

When you get drunk at a party, you put yourself at the mercy of the worst person in the room.

What weak, sorry, dangerous bullshit. Most of us are able to actually hold two ideas in our heads contemporaneously, without diluting either.

Unsurprising that the site's most vocal misogynist is back to defend victim-blaming, and misses the point in doing so.

Since it needs to be explained simply: A women is never at fault for the rapist's actions-- not for "putting herself in that situation" or for "making a bad decision" or for her rapist "mistaking vomiting for consent." And, the comment that started this whole discussion steered the conversation away from the rapists, making it about the victim's actions. That you seem unconcerned with the effects of this sort of rhetorical strategy is, again, unsurprising, given your track record when discussing gender on this site. #1 is the start of a conversation, not the end of it-- if you want to discuss the topic further, discuss consent and its various mechanisms, discuss all the ways that men go about victimizing women.

Grow up and learn to reason. As for referring to the KKK, you useless sack of ####, and for implying that several of us are of that ilk, stop being a gutless pc coward, and stop abetting the rape of women. It's important that those of us on the other side of the issue stop pretending that you and yours don't do wholesale damage.

Predictable, Jack. You're an ugly little misogynist-- you couldn't conceal it with your last identity, and you can't resist indulging it with this one. Everything you post drips with it. Enough people have noticed it and pointed it out to you that you might want to think on it, rather than lashing out at your accusers (which has pretty much been your MO under every identity you've had here, or pretty much every subject you post about).

The woman's actions are not part of the conversation. Making them part of the conversation in a public forum excuses the act of the rapist, by implying that the women took an action that caused the rape. She did not. The man's action is the sole cause. There's nothing a woman does that in any way invites the action, and suggesting otherwise excuses the actions of the rapist. Especially when that suggestion comes from a blatant and proud misogynist talking to a room filled exclusively with men.

I'm sure you'll continue with your unhinged ranting about being "PC"-- this isn't about that. It's about the fact that you're saying the same #### about rape that men have always said, and then acting like it's some bold and courageous statement. You've had 4 people in this thread identify the gender discussions on BTF as particularly ugly (not just this one, but the others that happen here frequently), and you're the worst and most serial offender. So keep it going, but you're hanging only yourself with that rope, Jack (or OmarsBlack, or whatever you're going by these days).

The woman's actions are not part of the conversation. Making them part of the conversation in a public forum excuses the act of the rapist, by implying that the women took an action that caused the rape.

One can note that nothing good is likely to come from drinking yourself to unconciousness without condoning those that harm an unconcious person.

Oh, I thought you meant the game involved hoarding and selling at inflated prices. That would be a game that I would want to play.

Slivers, if you're interested and know somebody who owns a Nintendo Wii (or own one yourself) check out Fortune Street. It's a party game that plays like Monopoly, but has added difficulty in that you can buy shares in stretches of property that will yield dividends when players land on those spaces. You can buy stock in other people's territories to cash in on their successes, then sell off all your shares to tank the market price and devalue their stock. It's pretty complex and will lead to no small amount of hatred amongst your peers.

2. Here's a list of things you need to do to minimize the chance that someone will steal your car.

1. Muggings are always completely wrong.

2. Here's a list of things you need to do to minimize the chance that someone will mug you.

Rape is a hell of a lot closer to the two above examples (which I assume you have no problem with) than racial profiling/modern day lynchings are.

Several points in response.

1. Muggings and car theft aren't targeted at one gender. Prison rape aside, which is in a completely different category, virtually no men get raped, and to the extent that they are, nobody's giving them unsolicited advice on how to avoid it.

2. There's very little shame that's ever been associated with being a mugging or car theft victim. Those victims seldom get accused of "asking for it".

3. My reference to the modern day "conversation" that minority parents often have with their children wasn't about lynching, though it would have been several generations ago. It most certainly is about racial profiling by law enforcement officials, which is alive and well from Arizona to New York City. But more prosaically, it's more likely to be about avoiding the less visible form of racial profiling, engaged in by potential employers who are looking for an excuse not to hire you.

And the point isn't the lack of possible value of the advice that Jack was giving, it's that the person to be giving that advice---either about how to avoid racial profiling or how to avoid being raped---should be a parent, both parents, or someone who's close enough to them that the advice won't just go in one ear and out the other. I'm NOT saying that Jack or anyone else is "blaming the victim", or that they're "defending rape". But I am saying that for him or any of us (other than the handful of women who post here) to be giving advice to women on how to avoid rape amounts to just talking to ourselves, and I can't see the point of it.

Prison rape aside, which is in a completely different category, virtually no men get raped, and to the extent that they are, nobody's giving them unsolicited advice on how to avoid it.

What category is prison rape in, exactly? I'm not being snarky, I'm genuinely curious what distinction you're trying to make here by putting prison rape 'in a completely different category.' What is prison rape in a completely different category from and what's the basis for putting it in a different category?

What category is prison rape in, exactly? I'm not being snarky, I'm genuinely curious what distinction you're trying to make here by putting prison rape 'in a completely different category.' What is prison rape in a completely different category from and what's the basis for putting it in a different category?

Sorry if I wasn't clear about that. It's not the act itself that's different in terms of the horror and the degradation. It's that the sort of advice we see given to women on how to avoid it wouldn't have any application inside prison walls.

What sort of "advice" could anyone give to a prisoner to avoid rape, anyway? Don't wind up in prison to begin with? Be twice as strong as the next strongest person in your cell? Be known to have powerful connections with people who could make things very unpleasant for any potential assailant? None of that would be of much use to a random woman walking down a random street or going into a random bar where she doesn't know anyone.

What sort of "advice" could anyone give to a prisoner to avoid rape, anyway? Don't wind up in prison to begin with?

Implicitly, this is the advice being given, isn't it? Prison rapes aren't usually prosecuted. My suspicion is it's because on some level we view prisoners as not worthy of the protection because they failed to follow our advice.

It's analogous to a degree with the issue of 'advice.' A potential problem with the 'advice' in the Steubenville example is it leads to people standing around doing nothing, rationalizing what they are witnessing with a 'well, she shouldn't have gotten pass out drunk in the first place.'

So a stop and frisk or asking someone for their papers is the same thing as rape. Sure thing, Andy.

No, and it's not the same thing as getting lynched, it's not the same thing as the Ukranian famine, it's not the same thing as the Holocaust, and it's not the same thing as the end of the world. Congratulations for not having claimed I was equating it with those last four. Your rhetorical restraint is admirable.

But here's a hot tip: I wasn't equating stop and frisk (or employment discrimination) to rape, either. But I am making the point that "advising" the victims of any of those experiences to change their ways is advice that is much more appropriately given by parents, or by others who are more likely to be listened to by the objects of such advice than a bunch of men posting on a baseball forum.

Or to put it in personal terms: If you have daughters, then by all means tell them whatever you feel you have to in order to keep them from exposing themselves to (possibly) avoidable danger. Failing that, what standing do you have to give advice to any girl or woman? I'd direct the same point to myself, since although our goddaughter thinks I'm kind of a neat old man, I doubt if my non-experience when it comes to matters like this would ever speak much to her as she enters her adolescent years.

Since we're still somewhat on the subject of crimes committed by minors, I wonder how harshly Snapper's going to want to punish these guys. Is shooting a toddler in the head, while he's in a stroller, because his mom doesn't have any money to give you better or worse than Steubenville?

While the rest of you recover from heart palpitations at the woman-hating audacity of the previous pages, I want to know how harshly Snapper would judge these two, given his stated desire to throw the Steubenville duo in prison for 10 years or so. I am asking because I want to know. That is all.

While the rest of you recover from heart palpitations at the woman-hating audacity of the previous pages, I want to know how harshly Snapper would judge these two, given his stated desire to throw the Steubenville duo in prison for 10 years or so. I am asking because I want to know. That is all.

Ignoring your little bit of scenery-chewing at the start, I can't quite figure why you'd ask if murder is worse than rape as part of your question to the Court of Snapper vs. any other court. It seems to infer some kind of point that I admit I still can't decipher.

Huh? Why are you changing the subject? Andy's "contribution" to the thread was that stop & frisk = rape.

This is a simple reading that Andy has by now answered.

If you directly quote one specific poster for the purpose of mockery of a specific topic, asking you too follow up in the same manner on that topic as the poster you quoted is not changing the subject.

Failing that, what standing do you have to give advice to any girl or woman?

So truthful public service ads can't be aimed at girls and women?

I have no idea where you come up with the idea that certain people lack "standing" to provide helpful advice to other people. (Not literally "no idea" -- you came up with it as a fallback position when you realized that what Ray first suggested indeed was truthful and useful advice. Being unable to argue against that, "standing" became the final redoubt of nonsense.)

The idea that "pulling an Arpaio" is in any way akin to rape is also insulting and nonsensical. "Racism" is of course entirely different conceptually from rape -- it being a state of mind as opposed to an affirmatively heinous act. Racially motivated bad acts can certainly be worthy of serious censure, though that's entirely different from "racism" itself. And as they get worse and worse, the racial component embedded within bad acts gets entirely dwarfed by the character of the act itself.

Since we're still somewhat on the subject of crimes committed by minors, I wonder how harshly Snapper's going to want to punish these guys. Is shooting a toddler in the head, while he's in a stroller, because his mom doesn't have any money to give you better or worse than Steubenville?

LaPierre said Bloomberg is making irresponsible claims about gun owners and the NRA.

“It’s insane the stuff he says,” LaPierre said.

When I see people like this, who make such obviously hypocritical statements like this, I often wonder- do they do it out of a delusion-ally degree of non-self awareness or do they just know what they want and will say anything, no matter how ridiculous, to get it. In a way, I'm kind of jealous. I could never say the things LaPierre says with a straight face, even if I was every bit the gun nut he is. I'd probably be a lot richer if I could do that.

I believe redemption is possible for anyone. But why must they be free to have redemption? Why can't they redeem themselves in prison?

What benefit to society would be gained by taking a 14 year old boy - assuming he was not the shooter just to make it simpler - locking him in prison for 20 years, and then releasing him? What skills will that 34 year old man have when he's released? How does living six more years in prison than he's lived in society help him rehabilitate or help society in general?

If he's redeemable, then you don't want to lock him up with career criminals for 20 years.

What benefit to society would be gained by taking a 14 year old boy - assuming he was not the shooter just to make it simpler - locking him in prison for 20 years, and then releasing him? What skills will that 34 year old man have when he's released? How does living six more years in prison than he's lived in society help him rehabilitate or help society in general?

It achieves justice. That child ain't coming back when he hits 21.

He can get an education in prison. He can work. If you give him a slap on the wrist, why would he reform himself?

Failing that, what standing do you have to give advice to any girl or woman?

So truthful public service ads can't be aimed at girls and women?

Public service ads, whether or not you agree with the particular message, come from more than one person, and don't consist of one particular gender giving advice to the other.

I have no idea where you come up with the idea that certain people lack "standing" to provide helpful advice to other people. (Not literally "no idea" -- you came up with it as a fallback position when you realized that what Ray first suggested indeed was truthful and useful advice. Being unable to argue against that, "standing" became the final redoubt of nonsense.)

Tell you what: Go out to the first 10 women you see whose dress you might find too provocative in certain situations, and start telling them that for their own good, they should dress more modestly. See how far you get. See what they think about your standing to lecture them. You seem to have this curious idea that the message can always be separated from the messenger, but in the real world that's often not how it works.

Of course on BTF you're not doing anything quite that stupid. Here you're just preaching to pigeons, since women aren't listening, other than the one woman who's spoken out and pretty much called you out for what you are. Your only reaction to that is to change the subject and start questioning the motives of those who agreed with her. The idea of incorporating her perspective into your thoughts is apparently beyond the pale.

The idea that "pulling an Arpaio" is in any way akin to rape is also insulting and nonsensical. "Racism" is of course entirely different conceptually from rape -- it being a state of mind as opposed to an affirmatively heinous act. Racially motivated bad acts can certainly be worthy of serious censure, though that's entirely different from "racism" itself. And as they get worse and worse, the racial component embedded within bad acts gets entirely dwarfed by the character of the act itself.

Once again you completely distort what I was saying, which had nothing to do with comparing the violence of rape to the non-violent invasion of a stop-and-frisk**, but with comparing the advice to be given to those who might want to avoid either (1) rape or (2) unprovoked confrontations with racially profiling policemen. The violations aren't the same, but the conversations that daughters and minorities have with parents who want their children to avoid misfortune often have much in common.

**Knowing you and Ray, I'm sure that you'll repeat this canard at least one more time before you finally just get tired of it and drop it.

You confuse justice with vengeance. The kid ain't coming back at all. There's no benefit in exacerbating the terrible situation for the sake of your moral outrage. The toddler's dead. If a 14 year old is not mentally capable of making the decision to buy a pack of cigarettes then he's certainly not liable to be tried and convicted for a 20 year prison term.

He can get an education in prison. He can work.

This is simply wishcasting. Have you looked at the American prison industrial complex recently? They're not in the business of educating 14 year olds, unless you're looking to educate him in how to become a career criminal.

You confuse justice with vengeance. The kid ain't coming back at all. There's no benefit in exacerbating the terrible situation for the sake of your moral outrage. The toddler's dead. If a 14 year old is not mentally capable of making the decision to buy a pack of cigarettes then he's certainly not liable to be tried and convicted for a 20 year prison term.

No, you don't understand justice b/c you're stuck in a materialist, utilitarian mindset. Just has nothing to do with fixing the material harm caused, it's about balancing the metaphysical harm.

Executing Goering, and Eichmann and co. wasn't bringing any Holocaust victims back, and they were no threat going forward, but it needed to be done for the sale of justice.

I completely reject your view on the mental capacity of 14 y.o.'s. They know robbing people and killing babies is wrong.

I have no problem allowing 14 y.o.'s to buy cigarettes, or alcohol for that matter.

Tell you what: Go out to the first 10 women you see whose dress you might find too provocative in certain situations, and start telling them that for their own good, they should dress more modestly.

That wasn't really what we were talking about -- we were talking about getting so shitfaced that you lose control of yourself and your ability to function. Suggesting that people, including girls/women, don't do that is a good idea and pretty much anyone has "standing" to do so.

What you're really saying is that all advice about conduct and the like must be proffered by modern liberals or in keeping with the modern liberal script -- in which race and gender are paramount. If the message can't be separated from the messenger -- of course, it can be, but I'll play along -- there's a "white" message, a "black" message, a "female" message, etc., and that conception of an ineluctable tie between thoughts and race/gender is modern liberalism at its essence.

No such thing is true, which is why black people and women are entirely free to give me advice and "lecture" me.

Your only reaction to that is to change the subject and start questioning the motives of those who agreed with her.

That wasn't my reaction at all. I certainly didn't change the subject.

Once again you completely distort what I was saying, which had nothing to do with comparing the violence of rape to the non-violent invasion of a stop-and-frisk**, but with comparing the advice to be given to those who might want to avoid either (1) rape or (2) unprovoked confrontations with racially profiling policemen. The violations aren't the same, but the conversations that daughters and minorities have with parents who want their children to avoid misfortune often have much in common.

If the violations aren't the same -- and they aren't even close -- then the imperatives in preventing them aren't the same either. Preventing rape is far more important -- and thus advice far more appropriate -- than preventing "racially profiling policemen," whatever that means.